4 ms·
Well, any blockchains that uses this amount of energy for it's consensus, though there are plenty of blockchains that don't really need that much energy (Git do
by zaarn 7y ago
Well, any blockchains that uses this amount of energy for it's consensus, though there are plenty of blockchains that don't really need that much energy (Git doesn't use much to run a commit either)
- ulrikrasmussen 7y agoBut git also doesn't solve a distributed consensus problem. The problem of reaching consensus on the official HEAD commit is externalized to traditional PKI methods, e.g. GitHub.
- zaarn 7y agoWell, no, the consensus of a git repo depends on who use it. For example, on Linux the true HEAD is where Linus says it is. Everyone else is wrong. That's a consensus of everyone working on Linux. In more distributed projects, HEAD is where everyone agrees HEAD should be. Human consensus is a valid form of blockchain consensus.
- chii 7y ago> Human consensus is a valid form of blockchain consensus. Not if you want a trustless system. Otherwise, why waste time/energy? A bank can currently perform the "human consensus" part already (ala credit cards and fiat money).
- zaarn 7y agoYou can clone democracy if you want trustless.
- paulmd 7y ago> Human consensus is a valid form of blockchain consensus. No, Linus is a form of an oracle here. Linus says the head is X therefore it is. (oracles are fine! we could also just call them "authorities"! having an authority at the head of a project is fine! but it's not really blockchain.)
- zaarn 7y agoI would disagree that is not really blockchain, Linus is a form of consensus for the git blockchain of the Linux project, I see no issue in that.